A number of containers are configured to achieve easy opening, such as without the need for a can opener or other tool and preferably which does not involve separation of any parts (so that there is no separate tab or cover piece to dispose of). A number of features of such containers and container ends affect the level to which end users, as well as bottlers, manufacturers, distributors, shippers and retailers, are satisfied with the container. One factor believed to be of some importance to consumers is the pour characteristics of the container. In general, it is believed that consumers prefer to use containers capable of providing a relatively high pour rate, such as pouring about 350 ml in less than about 10 seconds, preferably less than about 8 seconds, and more preferably less than about 7 seconds (e.g., measured using pour rate testing as described below). Additionally, it is believed consumers prefer containers that provide a smooth or substantially laminar pour, i.e. a pour which is not characterized by a series of surges (which can cause splashing and/or can affect a beverage head, fizz or other carbonation or pressurization-related characteristics of the contents, after pouring).
Certain previous containers have been configured in an attempt to address these concerns by providing relatively large openings, e.g. openings covering greater than about 0.5 square inches (about 3.2 cm.sup.2). Unfortunately, such larger openings tend to be associated with a higher rate of problems such as bursting, buckling, leakage, opening failures and the like, particularly when the contents are pressurized, such as being provided with an over-pressure of about 35 psi (about 250 kPa) or more. Furthermore, such larger openings are difficult or infeasible to provide in container ends which are relatively small, such as round container ends having a diameter of less than about 2 inches (about 5 cm). Furthermore, certain previous approaches to improving pouring characteristics have involved major changes to the design of the container end, thus involving relatively high tooling or other equipment costs, design costs, testing costs and the like.
Accordingly, it would be useful to provide a container or container end with improved pouring characteristics while retaining a relatively small opening area, which is preferably compatible with relatively small-sized container ends, and which can be achieved with only modest changes in tooling, procedures and/or testing.